Challenge to FHFA directive that prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from purchasing mortgages on properties encumbered with liens under Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs.
- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- California
- /
- County of Sonoma v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
County of Sonoma v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
Geography
Year
2010
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2010
Status
Opinion issued (1) vacating district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and (2) dismissing case .
Geography
Docket number
12-16986
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Other Statutes and Regulations (US)
Principal law
United States → Federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
At issue
Challenge to FHFA directive that prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from purchasing mortgages on properties encumbered with liens under Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
03/19/2013
Opinion issued (1) vacating district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and (2) dismissing case .
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the regulator and conservator of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, issued a directive preventing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from purchasing mortgages for properties encumbered by liens created by property-assessed clean energy (PACE) programs. FHFA indicated, among other things, that the first liens of the PACE programs could disrupt the housing market and that there was a lack of underwriting standards to protect homeowners and an absence of energy-saving standards to allow for the valuation of home improvements. Plaintiffs alleged that FHFA must issue a regulation to implement this directive. The district court ruled against FHFA and required completion of notice-and-comment rulemaking. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the action, ruling that FHFA’s directive was a lawful exercise of its statutory authority as conservator, and that the courts therefore lacked jurisdiction.
Decision
Summary
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Renewable energy
Economic sector
Finance